Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Not analogous. Take this however you'd like, but I'm not interested in looking up the details of another rabbit trail, I'm talking about Penn State.

How in the hell is it not analogous? You're saying Penn State shouldn't be punished for the actions of their President, AD, Head Coach and VP. Yet through out the history of the NCAA schools are routinely punished for the actions of a few men.
Bama
Auburn
SMU
Miami
USC

Those are five right off the top of my head.

The sanctions imposed by the NCAA only affect the football team, not the entire University. 60 million in fines, equal to a year of football games. Loss of scholarships, four year bowl ban and five years probation. These sanctions are well within the NCAAs right and have been handed down to multiple teams over the years.

"Today, Penn State takes another step forward in changing the culture at the institution as we accept the penalties of the NCAA for the failure of leadership that occurred on our campus," Penn State acting athletic director David Joyner said in the release. "We are deeply disappointed that some of our leaders could have turned a blind eye to such abuse, and agree that the culture at Penn State must change."

Notice how Joyner says PENN STATE takes a step forward. PENN STATE culture must change.

Penn State very well could have received the death penalty, and a lot of people thought that's what should've happened. The NCAA didn't because "Suspension of the football program would bring with it significant unintended harm to many who have nothing to do with this case. The sanctions we have crafted are more focused and impactful than that blanket penalty."

NCRAVEN:

The Penn State's football program is the only program in the University that is being punished. The 60 million dollar fine is to be paid over five years, and must come from the football team's money.

"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock

How in the hell is it not analogous? You're saying Penn State shouldn't be punished for the actions of their President, AD, Head Coach and VP. Yet through out the history of the NCAA schools are routinely punished for the actions of a few men.
Bama
Auburn
SMU
Miami
USC

Those are five right off the top of my head.,

Your right. They are analogous, it was a poor word choice on my part. However, your making them out to be equivalent, which they are not. In some cases I may feel differently, in some similarly, it depends on the details of each case. I'm interested in the details, my issue is with the details. I'm not going to pretend I can make a valid judgment of each case without looking into them, something I am not interested in doing. In my last post I addressed my issues with the sanctions, if you want to explain why you have issues with them as they relate to PSU, by all means.

These sanctions are well within the NCAAs right and have been handed down to multiple teams over the years.

Since HR set me straight on this in the beginning of this thread I have not denied it was their right to act. However, Just because it was their right does not make it right.

Here's a good quote....

Notice how Joyner says PENN STATE takes a step forward. PENN STATE culture must change.

So what? I disagree with him.

Penn State very well could have received the death penalty, and a lot of people thought that's what should've happened.

This one's a hybrid logical fallacy: Relative privation/appeal to popularity

"Suspension of the football program would bring with it significant unintended harm to many who have nothing to do with this case. The sanctions we have crafted are more focused and impactful than that blanket penalty.

It essentially says "we could have imposed more unintended harm than we are." It doesn't deny unintended harm, only that it's "more focused."

Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Your right. They are analogous, it was a poor word choice on my part. However, your making them out to be equivalent, which they are not. In some cases I may feel differently, in some similarly, it depends on the details of each case. I'm interested in the details, my issue is with the details. I'm not going to pretend I can make a valid judgment of each case without looking into them, something I am not interested in doing. In my last post I addressed my issues with the sanctions, if you want to explain why you have issues with them as they relate to PSU, by all means.

"No amount of micromanagement could have prevented what happened. As disturbing as it sounds, Sandusky knew what he was doing. He knew when to pounce and when to wait so to not get caught, and the others were initially deceived, then didn't have the guts to admit they made a mistake and come forward."

That right there lost this argument for you. Yes, micromanagement could have prevented this from happening. Penn State officials actively covered up a heinous crime that was committed in their building. Instead of going to the police like they should have, they allowed Sandusky to maintain an office on campus. They knew he sexually molested a child. They knew about the multiple occasions he sexually molested children. And yet they did nothing.

They broke the NCAAs code of ethics.

Ethical Conduct
Standards of Honesty and Sportsmanship (Bylaw 10.01.1) – Individuals employed by (or
associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate
athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at
all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized
high standards associate with wholesome competitive sports.https://www.iwu.edu/registrar/NCAA_Ethical_Conduct.pdf

And here's where they got the bastards on lack of institutional control.

Those men allowed a known pedophile to roam their halls. Breaks Code of Ethics.
Those men never reported said pedophile. Shows lack of institutional control.
Penn State was punished.

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

Since HR set me straight on this in the beginning of this thread I have not denied it was their right to act. However, Just because it was their right does not make it right.

How is it right to punish USCs football team for recruiting violations by Pete Carroll and staff, but not right to punish Penn State for the actions of men who enabled a pedophile? I seriously want you to answer that.

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

So what? I disagree with him.

He's the athletic director of Penn State. He said that Penn State should be punished. In the context of this argument, that guy wins every time. Every. Single. Time.

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

This one's a hybrid logical fallacy: Relative privation/appeal to popularity

Sorry, I didn't know you were a liberal. I'll try to type slower so you can keep up.

What you quoted was not a logical fallacy. Your argument is that Penn State as a whole shouldn't be punished. The NCAA had every right to hand down the death penalty and Penn State wasn't about to fight it. However, the NCAA wanted to make sure that the entirety of PSU wasn't punished so they focused on the football team. You remember that team, right? The one whose head coach allowed a known pedophile to rape children on campus.

NCAA could've suspended Penn State's football team, and would've been cheered loudly for doing so. They didn't allow popular opinion, or emotion, to guide their hand.

Originally Posted by Sirdowski

It essentially says "we could have imposed more unintended harm than we are." It doesn't deny unintended harm, only that it's "more focused."

Gosh, you mean punishment isn't supposed to harm? Guess I've been doing it wrong. Maybe next time my kid throws a temper-tantrum I'll buy him a lollipop instead of grounding him.

"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock

"No amount of micromanagement could have prevented what happened. As disturbing as it sounds, Sandusky knew what he was doing. He knew when to pounce and when to wait so to not get caught, and the others were initially deceived, then didn't have the guts to admit they made a mistake and come forward."
That right there lost this argument for you. Yes, micromanagement could have prevented this from happening. Penn State officials actively covered up a heinous crime that was committed in their building. Instead of going to the police like they should have, they allowed Sandusky to maintain an office on campus. They knew he sexually molested a child. They knew about the multiple occasions he sexually molested children. And yet they did nothing.
They broke the NCAAs code of ethics.
Ethical Conduct
Standards of Honesty and Sportsmanship (Bylaw 10.01.1) – Individuals employed by (or
associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate
athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at
all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized
high standards associate with wholesome competitive sports.https://www.iwu.edu/registrar/NCAA_Ethical_Conduct.pdf
And here's where they got the bastards on lack of institutional control.
10: The institution and its staff members have a long history of self-detecting, self-reporting and self-investigating all potential violations.http://www.athletics.illinois.edu/co...al-Control.pdf
Those men allowed a known pedophile to roam their halls. Breaks Code of Ethics.
Those men never reported said pedophile. Shows lack of institutional control.
Penn State was punished.

Far and away your most reasonable and thought out post.

As I said previously, I have been mulling this over and really trying to figure out why I take such issue with the NCAA over this. Admittedly, I was distracted all day at work today stuck in introspection. HR was entirely accurate in the observance that he was unsure what I was even arguing, because, being truthful, I wasn't exactly sure myself. Only that I couldn't help but disagree. That PDF and the specifics really clarified the legal situation, especially with relation to a lack of institutional control. It also helped me realize why I still take issue, and although I have previously said it was fundamental, it is much more fundamental than I thought.
Based off of the very clear information you provided, and again, thank you, undoubtedly Penn State is legally responsible for what took place. Since I do concede to this, I no doubt cannot take issue with the sanctions.* However, I now realize where the root of my opposition has been: Moral responsibility. I do not believe Penn State is morally responsible for what took place. What I mean is, disassociated from all legal connotations, I do not hold PSU accountable for what took place. That this is the opposite of how most people feel, in my mind, is tragic. I believe false placement of moral responsibility on corporations as opposed to individuals is the reason legal responsibility so rigidly reflects this as well. This is also why I find I have taken such an issue with those so quick to ridicule, judge, and condemn the university.*

How is it right to punish USCs football team for recruiting violations by Pete Carroll and staff, but not right to punish Penn State for the actions of men who enabled a pedophile? I seriously want you to answer that.

I think the above response covers this, but it's interesting to note, Tim McNair the running backs coach on Carolls staff, is suing the NCAA for defamation of character over this and is going to win. Being the high integrity men that they are, several NCAA board members wrongfully blackballed the man and they have email proof. Also, Pete Caroll was found not guilty in his criminal trial.

Sorry, I didn't know you were a liberal. I'll try to type slower so you can keep up.
What you quoted was not a logical fallacy. Your argument is that Penn State as a whole shouldn't be punished. The NCAA had every right to hand down the death penalty and Penn State wasn't about to fight it. However, the NCAA wanted to make sure that the entirety of PSU wasn't punished so they focused on the football team. You remember that team, right? The one whose head coach allowed a known pedophile to rape children on campus.
NCAA could've suspended Penn State's football team, and would've been cheered loudly for doing so. They didn't allow popular opinion, or emotion, to guide their hand.

I don't follow, I'm a liberal why exactly? Because I disagree with your use of fallicious logic?

In any case, yes it was most definitely a logical fallacy.

Relative Privation fallacy is also known as 'it could be worse':

Scenario X is presented - (PSU sanctions)
Scenario Y is presented as a worst-case - (would-be PSU death penalty)
Therefore, scenario is X is not that bad.

Appeal to popularity: "most people think" "a lot of people think" etc.

Gosh, you mean punishment isn't supposed to harm? Guess I've been doing it wrong. Maybe next time my kid throws a temper-tantrum I'll buy him a lollipop instead of grounding him.

This is nonsense, and also reductio ad absurdum, yet another logical fallacy.

Unintended harm were the operative words in the initial point you were trying to make. I refuted that point, and now you seem to be abandoning that point in replace of the above babble.

Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

So in essence, you're not upset about PSU being punished, but rather that a lot of folks blame PSU for something a handful of men did. I sincerely doubt anybody is blaming PSUs English Department for the Athletics Department covering up the actions of a pedophile.

You're a liberal, I'm assuming, because of you choose to look at only one part of the problem/argument, instead of the whole situation. The statement, "PSU could've received the death penalty", is fallacious logic. However, earlier in the argument you made the statement that the NCAA allowed emotions to determine punishment. Taken in context, my original statement, followed by "The NCAA didn't because 'Suspension of the football program would bring with it significant unintended harm to many who have nothing to do with this case. The sanctions we have crafted are more focused and impactful than that blanket penalty.'" was meant to show the NCAA did not react emotionally. Rules were broken. The NCAA has been very consistent with the punishments handed down to other universities guilty of lack of institutional control.

And finally.

"Gosh, you mean punishment isn't supposed to harm? Guess I've been doing it wrong. Maybe next time my kid throws a temper-tantrum I'll buy him a lollipop instead of grounding him", isn't a logical fallacy. That was me mocking you in a good-natured way because I thought what you said was silly.

"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock

Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

I found a pretty phenomenal example of the reason this isn't simply a sematics issue and why organizational versus individual responsibility is significant. The case involves National Semiconductor, a company from Cali. that designs and manufactures chips for computer electronics.

"On March 6, 1984, the Department of Defense (DoD) charged that between 1978 and 1981 National Semiconductor had sold them some twenty-six million computer chips that had not been properly tested and then had falsified records to cover up the fraud. These potentially defective chips had been placed in airplane guidance systems, nuclear weapons systems, guided missiles, rocket launchers, and other sensitive military environments. Unfortunately, the chips were installed in scattered locations around the world and could no longer be tracked down. A government official commented that if one of these computer chips malfunctioned, "You could have a missile that would end up in Cleveland instead of the intended target."
Semiconductors manufactured for such military purposes are supposed to undergo lengthy, costly, and highly rigorous tests to guarantee that each works perfectly. Officials at National Semiconductor, however, admitted the company had omitted the tests between 1978 and 1981 when it fell behind its contract deadlines because of worker strikes, technical production problems, and because intense infighting about the company's direction had led to the resignation of several key managers. To cover up the omissions. National Semiconductor managers set up teams in the company's production department to falsify the documents testifying that each chip had been tested. One employee told a reporter: I'd say that over one hundred employees had to know. . . . Just about everybody in production control knew about it who had been there for six months. . . . There was a lot of documentation I personally dummied up. . . . When I realized how deeply things were being falsified, I just couldn't believe it. ... I asked, "How did things get the way they were?" Nobody seemed to be able to give me a good answer. Not all employees went along with the large-scale deception. Workers in the company's plant in Singapore, for example, refused to falsify their records when ordered to do so. National Semiconductor agreed to pay $1.75 million in penalties for defrauding the government. However, the company refused to provide the names of any of the individuals who had participated in the decision to omit the tests and falsify the documents, or any who had participated in carrying out these decisions. The Department of Defense objected. It wanted those individuals who had actually carried out the fraud to be punished and to be barred from holding the positions from which they had executed the fraud. "My concern," said the legal counsel for the Department of Defense, "is simply that a corporation' acts only through its employees and officers." Moreover, the Department of Defense argued, if those individuals continued to work at the company, the government would have no assurance that the company would not engage in the fraud again. Charles Sporck, then CEO of National Semiconductor, adamantly opposed the idea. In a public statement he said: "We totally disagree with the Defense Department's proposal. We have repeatedly stated that we accept responsibility as a company and we steadfastly continue to stand by that statement." A Company spokesperson later reiterated that position. "We will see [our individual people] are not harmed. We feel it's a company responsibility, [and this is] a matter of ethics." Sporck prevailed. No individual member of National Semiconductor was ever held criminally or civilly liable for the crime. Only the company "as a company" was penalized."

It is undeniable that it is absolutely wrong for those individuals who willingly participated in this scandal to not be held responsible for their actions. However, because the view of corporate responsibilty prevailed, these individuals were let off the hook. The most devastating result of this mindest is that it completely undermines two essential elements of the law: deterance and incapacitation. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that because individuals involved in this scandal were not touched they would not hesitate to repeat their actions under similar circumstances.

Yes, but because of this notion of corporate responsibility, superficial corporate punishment can take the place of real justice. I imagine that if one of those missiles did malfunction and wind up in Cleveland, individuals would have been held responsible. For that to need to take place in order for real justice to be served, IMO is wrong. Yes we are thankful nothing serious like that happened, but individuals should have been punished just the same.

Re: NCAA Responds to Penn. Governor's Lawsuit

Again, you need to look at the whole picture. We were arguing about PSU being punished for the actions of its leaders while the leaders were also charged with a crime. Now you bring this article to our attention where a company is punished but not the people who perpetrated the crime. Not exactly the same thing.

You see, the reason institutions (universities, corporations, etc...) are punished is so they don't let the same things happen over and over. We'll take the corporation from your latest example; National SemiConducter (NSC for short). They committed fraud against the federal government. The reason the corporation is punished is so that the people in charge won't do that again. Hit them in the bottom line and fat-cats tend to notice.

Let's say NSC made 20 million with their contract. Obviously I don't know the exact number but for example purposes it's best to go simple. If the government fines them 30 million dollars, NSC made a net profit of negative 10 million dollars. Their board of directors and shareholders aren't going to be happy about that. The hope is, by punishment the higher ups are forced to take more care in making sure everything is done correctly, no laws are broken, faulty chips aren't being stuck in military grade weaponry. If you don't change the culture of an institution, the same mistakes are going to be repeated over and over.

Actual thinking. Should always be the first step.

"A moron, a rapist, and a Pittsburgh Steeler walk into a bar. He sits down and says, “Hi I’m Ben may I have a drink please?”
ProFootballMock

Again, you need to look at the whole picture. We were arguing about PSU being punished for the actions of its leaders while the leaders were also charged with a crime. Now you bring this article to our attention where a company is punished but not the people who perpetrated the crime. Not exactly the same thing.

Obviously the depth of the point I'm trying to make is eluding you. No I am not trying to specifically compare PSU. I'm talking about the notion of corporate responsibility in general. However, PSU does fall under this in a general sense, because I disagree with the notion of corporate responsibility.

You see, the reason institutions (universities, corporations, etc...) are punished is so they don't let the same things happen over and over. We'll take the corporation from your latest example; National SemiConducter (NSC for short). They committed fraud against the federal government. The reason the corporation is punished is so that the people in charge won't do that again. Hit them in the bottom line and fat-cats tend to notice.

The individuals who participated on the bottom were just as responsible for the crimes as those at the top. Unfortunately, corporate responsibility is undifferentiated.

Let's say NSC made 20 million with their contract. Obviously I don't know the exact number but for example purposes it's best to go simple. If the government fines them 30 million dollars, NSC made a net profit of negative 10 million dollars. Their board of directors and shareholders aren't going to be happy about that. The hope is, by punishment the higher ups are forced to take more care in making sure everything is done correctly, no laws are broken, faulty chips aren't being stuck in military grade weaponry. If you don't change the culture of an institution, the same mistakes are going to be repeated over and over.

A corporations actions are nothing but the cumulative actions of individuals. Higher ups aren't the only ones involved with the crimes taking place. Employees, fully aware of they were engaging in illegal activity, willingly participated. These people received zero punishment. So yes, the company may not repeat, but whose to say these individuals wouldn't? This sends a direct message that in particular legal situations where cumulative efforts result in crimes, individuals will not be held accountable for their actions, which is the entire purpose of the law. So while in some instances we may feel corporate responsibility is just when it is supplementary, because of its arbitrary nature, it can just as easily result in injustice.